Yes, he as I said, he started with the military in 1956, to avoid being drafted (and as I said then, no dishonor there. He was more suited for his work with the Pentagon, than in being a regular solider.) However, his commitment ended in early 1958, soon after he finished his thesis and was awarded his PhD, in 1957. And yet, he stayed on with the Military.Originally Posted byTensor

His thesis was published with another article by Wheeler, lauding the thesis. There wasn't enough time for him to decide his idea was being ignored, Dewitt hadn't made his objections known (or Everette's answers to Dewitt's objections) and a over a full year before Everette met with Bohr.

So he was working with the military, and chose to stay with the military, before any kind of serious negative objections to his paper. Now I will agree that the reaction to his paper MAY have had something to do with his decision to continue with the military, after 1959. But by then, he was writing some of the highest level documents for the military and also in the process of setting up the first of some very lucrative private companies, involved with advising the military. So, it again, MAY, have been just one of many factors.

You miss the point. If you can’t follow the math of that paper, why would we take your objections to String Theory (just to be clear, String Theory should be referred to as Superstring Theory. Supersymmetry is a required part of current of the theory and wasn’t discovered until after the original String Theory) as objective or based on the mathematics of it?

Well, our equipment can’t probe to the level of strings, so that objection is pretty much a strawman. That’s like complaining that we can’t detect how rough the surface of an orange is, by trying to measure the roughness by throwing a baseball at the orange.

Are you saying the inability to integrate Quantum Field Theory and General Relativity in the 1980s was not an example of theories being broken?

You’re confusing models with reality. The standard model uses point particles for elementary particles. An electron, as a string, is a one dimensional object, not a two dimensional object. And, while experiments show that an electron is consistent with a point particle, actual experiments only claim that electrons are smaller than 10^{-22}m. This size is larger than the Planck Length and is also consistent with a size of the length of a string. So your complaint here is another strawman. Not only that, but if you can’t get the dimensions of strings correct, why should think you know enough about String Theory to take your objections to String Theory seriously?

And if you think string theory is ridiculous, explain how a zero dimensional object can act as if it’s spinning? Or, contain any kind of mass. It’s because it can be, in the context of some of our current models, be considered a point particle. That, however, doesn’t mean it is a point particle in all models or even in reality.

Well, then, you should be able to point out exactly where the mathematics of having this many dimensions is inconsistent, right?

Yeah, I’d like to hear them. It is, after all, falsifiable. It does make predictions, just not testable predictions that are different from current theory predictions. And that there is the point. If it made predictions that were contradicted by current observations, then it would be falsified. But, it hasn’t. All it’s current predictions, that are currently reachable with our current equipment, are consistent with observations.

Yeah, that’s been covered above.

There are five string theories, there are two mirror image pairs. A scale of R in one, works as 1/R in the other, and the other way around. And one that seems to be its own mirror image (See the AdS/CFT). Besides the scale, there are other strong indications that there is one overall theory (M-Theory) that incorporates all five. It’s M-Theory that includes branes, not the individual theories within M-Theory. So, it’s not some, it’s ONE.

Yeah, and GR also says that spacetime warps. How exactly does spacetime do that? Or perhaps you can explain why String Theory has to satisfy the field equations of GR, in order to be mathematically self consistent, IOW, GR is a part of string theory, in the low energy limit? You’re objecting to the way one model’s analogies describe the math, and accepting the way another model’s analogies describe it’s math. How about you compare the math straight? And before anyone else says anything, I'm not trying to imply that GR is anything magical. Just pointing out that what we model with GR, may not have an actual physical counterpart in reality, even though it does a good job of predicting what we see in reality.

GR also says that the warping of spacetime, increases without limit as the radius of mass decreases toward a zero radius, during a collapse. And there is nothing, again according to GR, that can stop that collapse. You don’t find any of these silly? Again, you’re confusing our models with reality. We assume that spacetime warps, because our model of spacetime, a smooth Lorentzian manifold, warps, when the Einstein Field Equations are applied(technically, the manifold also has to be connected, in a topological sense).

All you’ve done is set up a group of strawmen, then attacked those strawmen. I suppose that is what strawmen are for, but the only valid objection you’ve pointed out is that it hasn’t made any valid predictions that are different from current predictions. I would have thought you would have brought up the lack of background independence. However, there is the little matter of the compatibility of String Theory and AdS/CFT correspondence that you seem to haven’t mentioned.

In previous posts, you berate mainstream scientists for having closed minds, and yet, here you are, objecting to Superstring Theory. I could understand it if you were making well designed objections. But, you seem to be basing your objections on strawmen, not to mention making obvious errors about what exactly Superstring Theory claims. So, you seem, to me at least, to be making you decision based on strawmen and analogies, not on the acutal math.

As I said, I’m not overly fond of String Theory, and I think that Loop Quantum Gravity is a better way. However, I am aware of the successes and progress that Superstring Theory has made. And, understand why others think it has possibilities. Until we get a clear and obvious contradiction in either the mathematics of String Theory or a prediction that, even though we cant verify the prediction directly, contradicts a current observation, there really isn’t a reason to object to String Theory.